Comparing Lillard to Thomas

[jambr380]

This reminds me of the IT4 vs. Kyrie comparisons (the stats showed that they were also very similar).

It seems obvious to regular fans that Lillard and Kyrie are superior players to IT4, but at what point do we need to take a 2nd look and see that maybe our own guy is just about as good?

Is it really just about height? Because it sure as heck isn't about defensive ability, as Lillard and Kyrie are not especially great in this area.

I will just continue to be happy that we have a very affordable, legitimate go-to scorer and hope he can show that he is a true all-star. Maybe then, the attention will shift a bit.

[DefenseWinsChamps]

wow, IT4 over Dame?? The green goggles are strong in this thread. I'm not saying IT4 isn't playing well, but if I were starting a franchise? I'd take Lillard over Thomas.

Fair enough. I don't necessarily disagree with that. But the condition was never, "Staring a franchise." I was not thinking of who I would take if I were starting a franchise.

This thread has been focused on the fact that Thomas puts up almost the exact same numbers this year (per 40, PER, advanced, efficiency, RPM, etc.) as Lillard, and that Thomas is putting up the exact same numbers, and a little better, than Lillard's All-Star season in the Western Conference last year. He is doing all of this with worse teammates.

If you combine the fact that Thomas has the same effectiveness on the court as Lillard, and the fact that Thomas is making LESS THAN HALF of what Lillard makes, I would rather have Thomas.

But the main goal of this thread has been to show loyal Celtic fans that we have an All-Star caliber point guard on our team, and that our fan base needs to support Thomas as an Eastern Conference All-Star or he will never get in.

[pearljammer10]

I choose Thomas for 7 million a year over Lillard for 15 million a year any day, especially when their production is identical.

Whoa.

Take Lillard over Thomas 10 times out of 10. Lillard is taller, better shooter, and overall a far better offensive scorer.

1. As if taller means he is a better basketball player. Curry should be teaching everyone that. I just gave you tons of stats that indicate that Thomas is the same level of basketball player that Lillard is, and you give me 5'9'' and 6'2''.

2. He is not a better shooter. Don't equate highlight plays with shooting ability. Career shooting percentages are almost identical. Thomas is 44%, 36%, 86%. Lillard is 43%, 37%, 87%. I would also argue that Lillard has consistently had better teammates than Thomas, which means his efficiency should have been higher because the attention was more on Aldridge, Matthews, and Batum.

3. Lillard is a more versatile scorer, but I would not say he is a far better scorer. Versatility can make a scorer more effective, but Thomas does several things really well. It's not about how many ways you can put the ball in the hoop, it's about whether or not you do. In comparable usage rates, they average the same points per 40 minutes.

You can't leave out height when comparing NBA players especially when they're at the same position. If you're comparing IT to Shaq of course you aren't going to use height as a factor in their contrasts. But if you're comparing Sullinger to a player like Drummond, those two or three extra inches play a huge effect in how effective that player is.

Lillard being taller than IT is huge. He has more length to guard defenders, he doesnt need as much space when shooting because he can shoot over the defender easier than IT, he can get his hand in opposing players faces easier... It goes a long way.  Not only do I take Damian Lillard because he is a better overall talent, give me those extra 6 inches (he's listed at 6 foot 3) at the point guard slot every day of the week.

[DefenseWinsChamps]

I don't leave height out of the equation. Thomas is exactly as effective as Lillard even though he is 6 inches shorter.

Lillard's height has not helped him to shoot a better career%. Lillard's height has not help him to be a better defender (by every conventional and advanced metric). Lillard's height has not helped him to score more effectively or efficiently.

I admit that Lillard can score in more ways than Thomas, but Thomas is more effective than Lillard at the ways he can score, meaning that they even out.

While height is a big thing, some players defy conventional logic when it comes to height. They find the ability to be just as effective (if not more so) as a taller player. Think of Charles Barkley, Ben Wallace, Allen Iverson, Muggsy Boggues, Elton Brand, Paul Milsap, Eric Gordon, Kenneth Faried, Draymond Green, Monta Ellis, Tony Allen, etc. Each one of these players played different ways with different strengths, but by conventional wisdom, they should not have been able to be effective because of their height.

This is the category Thomas is in. Like it or not, Celtic fans will need to embrace that CBS does not care about height. He cares about speed, skill, and effort. This means 4 of the 5 positions in our starting lineup could be undersized by conventional thinking (Thomas, Smart, Crowder, Sullinger), but as long as they are effective, who cares?

[DefenseWinsChamps]

I suspect that there are numbers somewhere out there in the ether that demonstrate it's easier for opponents to stop Thomas from scoring if they really try, whereas Lillard is tougher.  Also, subjectively, it seems to me that Lillard has more frequent 30+ point performances.

Those are just hunches, though.  I'm open to the possibility that's my bias in favor of a player who's taller and more widely recognized as a star.

You could be right. I appreciate your openness about potential bias.

I could be bias about a Celtic player, but part of that is my nature to argue against the bias against the celtics on this celtic blog. It seems like no matter how many stats indicate our Celtics players are good, we always want to trade them away and/or we always have a "grass-is-greener" mindset.

[Celtics18]

I don't leave height out of the equation. Thomas is exactly as effective as Lillard even though he is 6 inches shorter.

Lillard's height has not helped him to shoot a better career%. Lillard's height has not help him to be a better defender (by every conventional and advanced metric). Lillard's height has not helped him to score more effectively or efficiently.

I admit that Lillard can score in more ways than Thomas, but Thomas is more effective than Lillard at the ways he can score, meaning that they even out.

While height is a big thing, some players defy conventional logic when it comes to height. They find the ability to be just as effective (if not more so) as a taller player. Think of Charles Barkley, Ben Wallace, Allen Iverson, Muggsy Boggues, Elton Brand, Paul Milsap, Eric Gordon, Kenneth Faried, Draymond Green, Monta Ellis, Tony Allen, etc. Each one of these players played different ways with different strengths, but by conventional wisdom, they should not have been able to be effective because of their height.

This is the category Thomas is in. Like it or not, Celtic fans will need to embrace that CBS does not care about height. He cares about speed, skill, and effort. This means 4 of the 5 positions in our starting lineup could be undersized by conventional thinking (Thomas, Smart, Crowder, Sullinger), but as long as they are effective, who cares?

Isaiah Thomas is highly skilled, quick, and fearless.  Those attributes help him make up for his lack of height.

He is also very, very strong.  I feel like physical strength gets overlooked as a positive attribute for basketball players--particularly guards--all too often.  Everyone loves height and length, but they forget about strength.

Isaiah is a good finisher at the rim.  Somebody already showed some of the numbers on that.  His skills and his tenacity help him out at the basket.  So does the fact that for a little dude, Isaiah is strong as an oxe.  He absorbs contact and remains balanced, and he gets leverage with his body against much bigger defenders, moving them back and giving himself the ability to score. 

We shouldn't overlook strength as a positive physical attribute in basketball. 

[DefenseWinsChamps]

My challenge to anyone who reads this is to notice, as you look at the box score and watch our games, how many times Thomas outplays the opposing lead guard.

I think you could argue he has done this in all but two games this year, OKC and the 2nd Hawks game, but even those are debatable.

[DefenseWinsChamps]

I don't leave height out of the equation. Thomas is exactly as effective as Lillard even though he is 6 inches shorter.

Lillard's height has not helped him to shoot a better career%. Lillard's height has not help him to be a better defender (by every conventional and advanced metric). Lillard's height has not helped him to score more effectively or efficiently.

I admit that Lillard can score in more ways than Thomas, but Thomas is more effective than Lillard at the ways he can score, meaning that they even out.

While height is a big thing, some players defy conventional logic when it comes to height. They find the ability to be just as effective (if not more so) as a taller player. Think of Charles Barkley, Ben Wallace, Allen Iverson, Muggsy Boggues, Elton Brand, Paul Milsap, Eric Gordon, Kenneth Faried, Draymond Green, Monta Ellis, Tony Allen, etc. Each one of these players played different ways with different strengths, but by conventional wisdom, they should not have been able to be effective because of their height.

This is the category Thomas is in. Like it or not, Celtic fans will need to embrace that CBS does not care about height. He cares about speed, skill, and effort. This means 4 of the 5 positions in our starting lineup could be undersized by conventional thinking (Thomas, Smart, Crowder, Sullinger), but as long as they are effective, who cares?

Isaiah Thomas is highly skilled, quick, and fearless.  Those attributes help him make up for his lack of height.

He is also very, very strong.  I feel like physical strength gets overlooked as a positive attribute for basketball players--particularly guards--all too often.  Everyone loves height and length, but they forget about strength.

Isaiah is a good finisher at the rim.  Somebody already showed some of the numbers on that.  His skills and his tenacity help him out at the basket.  So does the fact that for a little dude, Isaiah is strong as an oxe.  He absorbs contact and remains balanced, and he gets leverage with his body against much bigger defenders, moving them back and giving himself the ability to score. 

We shouldn't overlook strength as a positive physical attribute in basketball.

That's a great point. It seems like he really beefed up in the summer of 2014, after he signed with the Suns. He has a quick first step too. He is not as fast as the elite speed guys, but he has excellent quickness.

[BitterJim]

I don't leave height out of the equation. Thomas is exactly as effective as Lillard even though he is 6 inches shorter.

Lillard's height has not helped him to shoot a better career%. Lillard's height has not help him to be a better defender (by every conventional and advanced metric). Lillard's height has not helped him to score more effectively or efficiently.

I admit that Lillard can score in more ways than Thomas, but Thomas is more effective than Lillard at the ways he can score, meaning that they even out.

While height is a big thing, some players defy conventional logic when it comes to height. They find the ability to be just as effective (if not more so) as a taller player. Think of Charles Barkley, Ben Wallace, Allen Iverson, Muggsy Boggues, Elton Brand, Paul Milsap, Eric Gordon, Kenneth Faried, Draymond Green, Monta Ellis, Tony Allen, etc. Each one of these players played different ways with different strengths, but by conventional wisdom, they should not have been able to be effective because of their height.

This is the category Thomas is in. Like it or not, Celtic fans will need to embrace that CBS does not care about height. He cares about speed, skill, and effort. This means 4 of the 5 positions in our starting lineup could be undersized by conventional thinking (Thomas, Smart, Crowder, Sullinger), but as long as they are effective, who cares?

Exactly.  Size is important when determining how someone will develop our adapt top the NBA, but it's totally irrelevant when comparing two players' stats

[colincb]

Below is a linked BB-reference,com comparison between the two players careers. Lillard has averaged about 8 mpg more than Thomas which will increase his scoring average, but likely reduce his efficiency. Thomas has the better offensive rating and Offensive Box +/- probably due to having a higher TS% and PER. Lillard appears to be the better defensive player based on defensive Box +/- and defensive rating which may result from Thomas being posted up because of his size. Neither are good defenders though.

I think you have to give the edge to Lillard given how well he maintains his numbers while playing 8 more minutes per game. Without that consideration, it's pretty close. In terms of contract value, however, Thomas wins in a landslide.

TP to the OP and PhoSita's response.

===

http://bkref.com/tiny/9BMkq

[DefenseWinsChamps]

Below is a linked BB-reference,com comparison between the two players careers. Lillard has averaged about 8 mpg more than Thomas which will increase his scoring average, but likely reduce his efficiency. Thomas has the better offensive rating and Offensive Box +/- probably due to having a higher TS% and PER. Lillard appears to be the better defensive player based on defensive Box +/- and defensive rating which may result from Thomas being posted up because of his size. Neither are good defenders though.

I think you have to give the edge to Lillard given how well he maintains his numbers while playing 8 more minutes per game. Without that consideration, it's pretty close. In terms of contract value, however, Thomas wins in a landslide.

TP to the OP and PhoSita's response.

===

http://bkref.com/tiny/9BMkq

I'm gonna have to start using Basketballreferrence more. I did all of those stats on ESPN, without a comparison tool. Thanks for the assist!

[max215]

I hate per minute stats. It's a nice "what if" number but who knows if players can sustain that rate of play over the time that is given. There is a reason why a guy like Brandon wright plays 15 minutes as opposed to 32 and thats just one example.

Damian Lillard is a better talent than Thomas. Not to take away anything from Thomas, he is playing great ball for us and I like his fit in our system. My only criticism being his shot selection. However, I choose Lillard over Thomas everyday.

http://basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=501

[DarkAzcura]

I choose Thomas for 7 million a year over Lillard for 15 million a year any day, especially when their production is identical.

Whoa.

Take Lillard over Thomas 10 times out of 10. Lillard is taller, better shooter, and overall a far better offensive scorer.

1. As if taller means he is a better basketball player. Curry should be teaching everyone that. I just gave you tons of stats that indicate that Thomas is the same level of basketball player that Lillard is, and you give me 5'9'' and 6'2''.

2. He is not a better shooter. Don't equate highlight plays with shooting ability. Career shooting percentages are almost identical. Thomas is 44%, 36%, 86%. Lillard is 43%, 37%, 87%. I would also argue that Lillard has consistently had better teammates than Thomas, which means his efficiency should have been higher because the attention was more on Aldridge, Matthews, and Batum.

3. Lillard is a more versatile scorer, but I would not say he is a far better scorer. Versatility can make a scorer more effective, but Thomas does several things really well. It's not about how many ways you can put the ball in the hoop, it's about whether or not you do. In comparable usage rates, they average the same points per 40 minutes.

You can't leave out height when comparing NBA players especially when they're at the same position. If you're comparing IT to Shaq of course you aren't going to use height as a factor in their contrasts. But if you're comparing Sullinger to a player like Drummond, those two or three extra inches play a huge effect in how effective that player is.

Lillard being taller than IT is huge. He has more length to guard defenders, he doesnt need as much space when shooting because he can shoot over the defender easier than IT, he can get his hand in opposing players faces easier... It goes a long way.  Not only do I take Damian Lillard because he is a better overall talent, give me those extra 6 inches (he's listed at 6 foot 3) at the point guard slot every day of the week.

This would be a perfectly valid concern if we were talking pre-draft, but we have years of data showing that both players have had similar impact on their team despite IT having 4 inches less of length (I go by standing reach). Lillard has a slight edge for being a bit better defensively, but all of that extra height hasn't tangibly proven a large difference between the two players. I'm with the OP on this. IT makes half the amount of money (or even less) and is 95% as effective. Pretty easy who I would take.

The question is..do you really want to pay double and likely upwards of 20-23 million on his next contract for a guy who's only tangible difference is length and most likely will not impact your wins and losses any more or less?

I hate per minute stats. It's a nice "what if" number but who knows if players can sustain that rate of play over the time that is given. There is a reason why a guy like Brandon wright plays 15 minutes as opposed to 32 and thats just one example.

Damian Lillard is a better talent than Thomas. Not to take away anything from Thomas, he is playing great ball for us and I like his fit in our system. My only criticism being his shot selection. However, I choose Lillard over Thomas everyday.

Yeah but IT doesn't play 15 minutes a game. He plays 30, and with the Kings he played 35. It's perfectly okay to scale IT's numbers up on a per 36 level. It's not like we are scaling him up out of the realms of possibilities. He has shown he has the ability to scale up and keep up similar levels of production. The reason he doesn't play 35-37 minutes a game is because we likely have the best defensive backcourt in the league behind Bradley and Smart plus the fact that Stevens likes to maintain a longer rotation. I think it is perfectly okay to extrapolate and equalize their minutes seeing as they both play starter's minutes anyway. This isn't a case of one guy playing 15 and another playing 30 and if it were, I would agree with you.

Nice numbers.

I'm curious what the splits are in terms of production versus starters and production versus bench players.

I seem to recall reading something a week or two ago that suggested Thomas, and the Celts in general, score with much greater efficiency against opposing bench players.  That seems like something that would be true of every team.  But it also might make sense that the diminutive Thomas would get a lot of his points when the opponents bigger, better defenders aren't on the floor.

Looking at their shooting splits (distribution of shots and percentages), those are very similar, as well, except that Isaiah actually finishes much better inside (0-3 feet) and a much higher percentage of his field goals are assisted. 

Actually, 40% of Isaiah's 2 point field goals are assisted and 81% of his 3P field goals are assisted.  That's much higher than I would have expected. It's also much higher than any of his previous seasons, so maybe it's an aberration.

It speaks to how Isaiah has integrated himself into the Celts' offense, though it also speaks to how Lillard, by contrast, is having to do a lot more by himself for the scoring-thin Blazers.


I really enjoy watching IT.  It would be really cool if he made the All-Star team.  I think he can get there if the Celts have one of the better records in the conference.  He has a lot of competition, though.

What if Isaiah made it in over John Wall, who is struggling?  The best guard in the conference so far has probably been Lowry.  Wall might get voted in, however.

IT has always pretty much played the same whether he was starting or on the bench throughout his career. Actually I think his shooting numbers are a bit better as a starter. Anyway I know you asked for numbers specific to production vs starters and bench players, but let's be honest. IT may have came off the bench last year, but he plays a good chunk of his minutes vs starters. He's always playing the end of second quarters and fourth quarters, and that's always against the opposition's starters. IT was also one of the most effective 4th quarter players last season which we know is typically against starters. I don't have the exact numbers, but I feel pretty comfortable saying IT is pretty much the same guy whether he starts or comes off the bench.

[DefenseWinsChamps]

I hate per minute stats. It's a nice "what if" number but who knows if players can sustain that rate of play over the time that is given. There is a reason why a guy like Brandon wright plays 15 minutes as opposed to 32 and thats just one example.

Damian Lillard is a better talent than Thomas. Not to take away anything from Thomas, he is playing great ball for us and I like his fit in our system. My only criticism being his shot selection. However, I choose Lillard over Thomas everyday.

http://basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=501

TP. Nice find. I wouldn't say that every per possession or per40 minute stat predicts success in a larger role, but it certainly can.

[PhoSita]

I suspect that there are numbers somewhere out there in the ether that demonstrate it's easier for opponents to stop Thomas from scoring if they really try, whereas Lillard is tougher.  Also, subjectively, it seems to me that Lillard has more frequent 30+ point performances.

Those are just hunches, though.  I'm open to the possibility that's my bias in favor of a player who's taller and more widely recognized as a star.

You could be right. I appreciate your openness about potential bias.

I could be bias about a Celtic player, but part of that is my nature to argue against the bias against the celtics on this celtic blog. It seems like no matter how many stats indicate our Celtics players are good, we always want to trade them away and/or we always have a "grass-is-greener" mindset.

For me with Isaiah, I look at the fact that two teams passed on him pretty readily before we were able to get him, and when he was on the open market, he was only able to get $7.5 million.  Whereas Lillard is considered a franchise player. 

What to conclude from that?  Either all the teams in the league are wildly undervaluing Isaiah Thomas, or there is a reason for the disparity in how the two players are valued around the league, not to mention how the players are viewed by non-local media.

I try to assume that all of the people outside of Boston aren't just simpletons who don't put any thought into their evaluation of players beyond how tall they are or how many points they score.  Assuming that's true, where is the disconnect between what you're seeing in the numbers and what GMs and observers are seeing?   It's a fascinating question, because Thomas has been really good for the Celts pretty much since he arrived.